The 1999 film, with Jodie Foster and Chow Yun-Fat. Admittedly, it’s not the greatest film ever made or anything, but not even 2 stars (out of 4)? This rating is on the TW cable schedule, which I believe they take from TV Guide.
I like this film, and I love Jodie. It even has some good quotable lines. “You don’t have a father, you have a map!”
Usually, a film rated that low has something glaringly wrong with it, like sucky photography or bad sound or a shitty script. What’s wrong with this paticular movie that merits such a low score? I don’t get it.
I’m usually a fan of Ebert, but his review is rambling and random. It’s mostly about the story itself, which he doesn’t like. In fact, he praises the screenplay and Foster and Chow . He just apparently doesn’t like the 19th century Siamese culture.
That said, 2 stars is a big difference. Once that barrier is broken, the rating is saying the movie is a dog. This movie isn’t a dog. I still just don’t get it.
I think the story, with the lack of any romantic possibility between Anna and the King, is inherently racist.
Several years ago one of my Thai friends informed me that the Thai people consider the original movie monumentally insulting… and that it’s not shown in Thailand. That’s good enough to me to not watch any version of it.
So with apologies to Jodie Foster, who is wonderful, I’ve never seen it.
The Thais are extremely sensitive about lese majeste. Thailand banned The King and I because it says that the movie portrays the king as a bombastic fool, and nothing that insults the king, or the institution of kingship can be shown.
I think the fact that he had hundreds of wives and dozens of kids may have been kind of a turnoff to her more than his race. Ready-made family is one thing, but no woman wants to remember 800 birthdays. (Plus she was pissed because in his “governess wanted” ad on MySpace he described himself as “sort of Rex Harrison meets Yul Brynner”.)